Fan Perspective - 18 Game Season With 16 Game Max Per Player (1 Viewer)

There is talk about an 18 game regular season with each player allowed to play in a maximum of 16 games.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-reportedly-have-proposed-18-game-schedule-with-16-game-limit-for-all-players-as-cba-talks-intensify/

What do you think of this? 

If I didn't play FF I would probably be cool with it.

As someone who probably wouldn't watch the NFL nearly as much without the FF component though (which I would imagine describes a lot of people) I am not really a fan.  Seems like a huge headache for FF.

I believe the game is brutal enough on human beings at 16 games and have been dead set against an 18 game schedule. I do not know enough details (they should also bump up game day rosters) to say for sure, but imho a 2nd bye week could actually be a benefit for the players. FWIW, NE has in essence been playing an 18gm chedule for many yrs and yet still manage to play some of their best football at the end of the yr.

FWIW: Above is my NFL fan pov; did not even consider FF ramifications which imho will be minimal, FF will adjust as it always does. 

No way.  Could you imagine if your team was neck-and-neck with five other teams for the final play-off spot and one or more of your stars has to sit?

Hate it. Part of what makes me a fan of the NFL are the limited games that are played as it has an “every game has meaning” feel. Hate the idea of teams not fielding their best players every game. More is not necessarily better all of the time. 

Jedi Knight said:

No way.  Could you imagine if your team was neck-and-neck with five other teams for the final play-off spot and one or more of your stars has to sit?

Click to expand...

Sounds like poor planning by 'your team'.

In all honesty the only teams that would wait until late in the year to sit stars would be teams that are either A - way out in front, or B - out of the playoffs. I think the vast majority would sit top guys in the week 8-14 range. 

It's actually an idea I'd kicked around a while when the xfl was talking about an "anything goes" mentality. I like it a lot, love it even.  More football and more strategy in real life and ff.  Depth matters.

This rule would be terrible for fantasy football, but also terrible for people who want to go to live games. "Oh, you bought tickets 3 months ago hoping to see star players, now you get to watch their backups get blown up by some top tier team". At least if I am watching the game at home I can watch something else if that is the case. 

Do we need two threads on this topic as well?

It is a terrible idea.

I think expanding the games is something the NFL wants to do but limiting the number of games a player can play is not the way to do it.

Also Honda.

We probably wouldn't have gotten that awesome rams chiefs game.  Two elite teams playing a non conference opponent with superbowl aspirations when else are you going to bench mahomes or goff?  If you bench goff vs Oakland and mahomes vs Arizona, sure, you have a chance to win that game, but if you lose that game you're not guaranteed to win the big rams chiefs game and now you're down two out of conference games.  And you still have to pick a second opponent to bench your qb. 

It would completely kill matchups we already only get to see every 4 years.  

How about changing from 15:00 per quarter to 13:00 per quarter.  This will mean the players will be playing 8 minutes less per game, over 16 weeks that adds up to 128 minutes of less playing time. Switching to 18 games,  13:00 per quarters would actually be less overall minutes than they are playing now and there would be no need to limit players to 16 games.  Just need to get the NFLPA to agree  to it.

Let’s suppose someone is a Cardinals fan and they still struggle. And teams choose your team as the one to rest key players. So you pony up your hard earned money and don’t get to see Matt Ryan, Big Ben, Brees, Goff. Wilson, etc. Not sure I would be a fan of the proposed rule. 

Jedi Knight said:

No way.  Could you imagine if your team was neck-and-neck with five other teams for the final play-off spot and one or more of your stars has to sit?

Click to expand...

Grigs Allmoon said:

Sounds like poor planning by 'your team'.

In all honesty the only teams that would wait until late in the year to sit stars would be teams that are either A - way out in front, or B - out of the playoffs. I think the vast majority would sit top guys in the week 8-14 range. 

Click to expand...

I think fans would be even more mad if their team is in a tight playoff race  and their division rival gets to go up against the backups of an opponent that played a full lineup against their own team.

Fans want competitive balance and a level playing field.

I like the idea of reducing preseason games and adding a regular season game, especially if another bye week is added and/or rosters are expanded. I would support the idea of teams resting/rotating players more, again especially if rosters are expanded. But I hate the idea of limiting players to less than the full number of games.

I would prefer something like this:

1. Remove 2 preseason games and add 1 regular season game and 1 additional bye week - win for fans (more real football), NFL (more money), and players and coaches (extra bye week)
   
2. Expand rosters to 60 total (+7), 53 active (+7) on gamedays - win for players (more rostered, more depth = less pressure to play injured) and coaches (more depth)
   
3. Increase salary cap percentage to players from current 48.5% to at 49.9% - win for players (more money)
   
4. Each team has 8 home games, 8 road games, and 1 neutral site game, where neutral site games include international games and US neutral sites (e.g., San Antonio, Orlando, etc.) - win for NFL (more international games) and neutral-site fans
   
5. Each team that plays over a certain threshold of miles away from home for a neutral site game (e.g., London) gets a Thursday night game the week before and a bye week following - win for coaches and players (reduces burden of international games)
   

I'm sure the details would be extensive, but this looks like a framework where everyone wins. I don't think everyone wins with 18 games and limiting each player to 16.

Just Win Baby said:

I like the idea of reducing preseason games and adding a regular season game, especially if another bye week is added and/or rosters are expanded. I would support the idea of teams resting/rotating players more, again especially if rosters are expanded. But I hate the idea of limiting players to less than the full number of games.

I would prefer something like this:

1. Remove 2 preseason games and add 1 regular season game and 1 additional bye week - win for fans (more real football), NFL (more money), and players and coaches (extra bye week)
   
2. Expand rosters to 60 total (+7), 53 active (+7) on gamedays - win for players (more rostered, more depth = less pressure to play injured) and coaches (more depth)
   
3. Increase salary cap percentage to players from current 48.5% to at 49.9% - win for players (more money)
   
4. Each team has 8 home games, 8 road games, and 1 neutral site game, where neutral site games include international games and US neutral sites (e.g., San Antonio, Orlando, etc.) - win for NFL (more international games) and neutral-site fans
   
5. Each team that plays over a certain threshold of miles away from home for a neutral site game (e.g., London) gets a Thursday night game the week before and a bye week following - win for coaches and players (reduces burden of international games)
   

I'm sure the details would be extensive, but this looks like a framework where everyone wins. I don't think everyone wins with 18 games and limiting each player to 16.

Click to expand...

I don't see the players agreeing to this. They don't want more games. Adding a bye week, and a tiny bit more money are small potatoes. And the bolded is simply not true, IMO. Having more players on the team that could take a starters job would increase the pressure to play through injury, I would think.

I don't see the dooms day scenarios some are painting here, we already pay for pre season games where we do not see the "stars" and we already pay for games where players rest their starters at the end of the yr. This is something that would need to be negotiated with the PA and if done properly could work to the players benefit.

There are a lot of ways to get creative and add flexibility to help make it work. Removing 2 pre season games, expand gameday rosters, flexibility\creativity on the sit rules such as allowing some exemptions (qb pos?) allowing the rule to be violated (fine) in certain instances whereby a large chunk of money goes to players who don't get a 2nd bye week. These are just some options that come immediately to mind and I am sure there are better ones out there.  

Every player already misses 1wk, this would be adding a 2nd wk at the player\teams choosing and I dont see it as the end of the world. I am assuming the PA would only agree to it if it felt it was to the players benefit and I believe it could be if done right.

Arodin said:

I think fans would be even more mad if their team is in a tight playoff race  and their division rival gets to go up against the backups of an opponent that played a full lineup against their own team.

Fans want competitive balance and a level playing field.

Click to expand...

That happens now. I can think of one example off the top of my head. A few years ago the Bills played the Steelers, who were resting stars. The Bills were in a win-and-in scenario. They lost, but had they won, some other team would have lost out on the playoffs.

Maybe it happens slightly more in this scenario, but I don't think it would be a significant problem. I really think teams would use the vast majority of their player byes in the middle of the season so they are both rested, and at full force for the playoff push.

Grigs Allmoon said:

I don't see the players agreeing to this. They don't want more games. Adding a bye week, and a tiny bit more money are small potatoes. And the bolded is simply not true, IMO. Having more players on the team that could take a starters job would increase the pressure to play through injury, I would think.

Click to expand...

I see your point about playing through injury, but I disagree on the rest. Iin my scenario, NFL annual revenue would likely exceed $9B. I don't think adding 1.4% of that is "a tiny bit." I also seriously doubt the owners will ever allow the players to have 50% or more of the revenue, so my scenario pushes the players' share to a likely maximum. I think most players would be fine with the tradeoffs I outlined.  

I wouldn't mind an extended season.  Honestly makes 0 difference to me.  I'm more into the fantasy aspect of the NFL than real football though.  

From a real football standpoint, I don't like the 16 game max, and would rather see 2 bye weeks if that would work for scheduling.  Seems to make way more sense and it would be a way to appeal to the NFLPA.  16 game max just seems like a cop out "fancy" type of rule that just doesn't need to be there.  

The 16 game max is an idea that I hate to the point it would affect my viewing and fantasy football participation.  Take off 2 preseason games add two bye weeks, fine. But the 16 game max and the implications that flow from that are a bridge too far for me. 

The key part in all this is that the NFL derives most of its revenue from broadcast contracts, not ticket revenue and concessions.  In that light, keeping a 16 game season but adding in a second or a third bye for each team would allow there to be regular season 18 or 19 broadcast weeks.  I think it's safe to assume for the majority of NFL fans that your team being on bye for the week doesn't ruin your football watching experience.

2 or 3 byes have obvious benefits for player health.  I believe this could also drastically improve quality of play in the often-moribund Thursday night games.  With a couple exceptions, the byes could be structured so that every team playing a Thursday night game does so after a bye week.  This has the added benefit of giving them a long week on the flip side before their next game, drawing out the benefits of the bye (I think).

No byes for Week 1, so Week 2 this wouldn't work.  But you could start with byes in Week 2, especially if teams get 3 byes.

Everyone wins - the owners get more money, the players get more rest (and in a just world, a share of the pie of the newfound money), fans get 1-2 more weeks of football to watch, the networks can be happy too.

Assuredly, the owners will not pursue this option.

SDJohnny said:

The 16 game max is an idea that I hate to the point it would affect my viewing and fantasy football participation.  Take off 2 preseason games add two bye weeks, fine. But the 16 game max and the implications that flow from that are a bridge too far for me. 

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

I just now sent this email to Roger Goodell (and forwarded it to the NFLPA as well). We'll see if they read it and respond. I figured it was worth a shot. Let me know what you guys think.

A Detailed Plan For an 18-Game Season That Should Work For Everybody

Mr. Goodell,

I believe that I have a plan for the NFL schedule that could make all parties happy. Please indulge me by reading the entire email as I hope that you will find this to be true as well.

Part A - Schedule length and bye weeks

You could implement an 18-game, 21-week schedule with three evenly spaced byes during the season. Since the owners seem sold on an 18-game schedule with more traveling to neutral sites involved, it only makes sense for the players to have more time during the season to recover. If you cut the preseason to two games, then this would only add two weeks onto the end of the year time wise.

Bye weeks could be grouped like this:

Group 1 = off weeks 4, 9, 14

Group 2 = off weeks 5, 10, 15

Group 3 = off weeks 6, 11, 16

Group 4 = off weeks 7, 12, 17

Group 5 = off weeks 8, 13, 18

No bye during weeks 1-3 and weeks 19-21

Part B - How to determine the opponents for the two new games

For the two new games, I recommend that you think regionally and create two non-conference “rivalry” games. One of the games would be an international rivalry game and the other would be a “hometown” rivalry game. The rival team match-ups would be the same from year to year, therefore building an actual rivalry between the two teams. Here’s an example…

The Cowboys (NFC) two rivals would be the Texans (AFC) and the Chiefs (AFC). The Texans would also add the Saints as their second rival, the Saints add the Titans, etc. Alternate years between international and hometown games. I have added a list of my recommendation for the rivalries at the bottom of this email.

Cowboys vs. Texans (in San Antonio year 1, Austin year 3, Waco year 5 and international in years 2, 4, and 6)

Cowboys vs. Chiefs (in Norman year 2, Tulsa year 4, Stillwater year 6, and international in years 1, 3, and 5)

If the Cowboys happen to be playing the AFC West in that year’s rotation, then they just play the Chiefs twice – or the Texans twice if they play the AFC South. Teams already play two games per year against their divisional opponents, so doubling up against their regional rival once each every four years shouldn’t be an issue.

By utilizing college stadiums, you can truly make NFL fandom even more widespread and more regionally effective. Also, by using geographically close teams, many Cowboys fans that live in Dallas would be willing to drive a few hours to Austin or Norman to see their favorite team beat the hated Texans or Chiefs. Many fans in Austin or Norman would get the opportunity to see their favorite NFL team play in their hometown. Who wouldn’t like that?

Imagine the Lions and Browns alternating games in Ann Arbor, Columbus, Canton, and East Lansing… the Saints and Titans alternating games in Baton Rouge, Knoxville, and Oxford… you could use anywhere from 2 to 4 host cities based on the realistic options located between the two teams.

Part C - When to schedule the rivalry games

This would mean that there would be 16 international games and 16 rivalry games each season. The three evenly spaced byes would make scheduling issues more easily solvable, especially if you use the Thursday night, Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Monday night time frames wisely.

International games could be scheduled during the week before a bye, either on Sunday morning (Eastern hemisphere host city) or Sunday or Monday night (Western hemisphere host city) and regional rivalry games could be scheduled for Thursday nights after a bye in order to work around the college stadium that is being used, especially if you can’t find a week when that host college team is on the road. It sounds like a lot until you remember that each team is only affected twice and there are only 32 total games of this manner.

If you schedule the 32 games during the fifteen bye weeks (weeks 4 through 18), that would mean that you would have three rivalry games for two weeks and two rivalry games for the other thirteen weeks. Which week is which would be left up to the availability of the venues that are being used. If scheduled efficiently, you would only have one week in which there would be two international games.

This would also allow the beginning (Weeks 1-3) and end of the season (Weeks 19-21) to be used strictly for more conventional games as teams strive to get off to a fast start and/or finish the season strong. You could have two of the first three and two of the last three be divisional games with the other two divisional games somewhere towards the middle of the season, making all parts of the season (early, middle, and late) important.

Part D - Positives for everyone

The owners should like this as there would be more revenue being generated by both a longer TV contract (21 weeks versus 17) and a percentage of the extra gate money from the rivalry games, both regional and international. As things currently stand, due to the international games, there are always a couple of teams that only have seven true home games. This new schedule would even the playing field by allowing each team to keep their all eight of their home games and everyone is expected to travel internationally once a year.

The players should like the three evenly spaced bye weeks, which would allow for more rest time during the season. Players that have a sprained ankle, for instance, would have more opportunities to let it heal instead of having to play injured and running the risk of aggravating the injury further. This could also lead to players having a longer career overall since they wouldn’t be playing injured as often. You could also allow more IR-Designated to Return slots as there would be a greater chance of return due to the longer season. If you expand the rosters by a few players to help with the longer season, this would create more jobs (making the players happy). Most of those added players would probably be playing for the league minimum, so it shouldn’t negatively affect the increased salary cap much (again making the owners happy). Players should see a general increase in compensation since they are playing 18 games now instead of 16 and they aren’t being arbitrarily forced to sit out for two of those games. No one needs to sit out at all if they don’t want to.

The networks would be happy because a longer season means more football games, which means more ad revenue. Also, NFL games usually receive relatively high ratings, so more games means more frequently high ratings.

The league would benefit from the popularity of being physically present in so many new markets (both foreign and domestic). That could mean a LOT of great things for the NFL.  

The fans would benefit from two more games from their favorite team and the opportunity to travel (both locally and abroad) twice a year to watch their team play in a different setting if they so desire. The smaller-market fans have a more realistic opportunity to see their relatively local NFL team play once a year in a city much nearer to them.

I hope that you receive this email in the spirit that it was intended. I love football and the NFL and I want to help to see it be the most successful version of itself that it can be. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

Blue Thunder (I used my real name here though)

Team           Rival #1  &   Rival #2

Arizona = Denver &  Houston

Atlanta = Tennessee  &  Jacksonville

Baltimore = Washington &  Carolina

Buffalo =  Philadelphia &  Detroit

Carolina =  Cincinnati  &  Baltimore

Chicago =  Indianapolis  &  Pittsburgh

Cincinnati =  Minnesota  &  Carolina

Cleveland  =  Detroit   &    Green Bay

Dallas  =  Houston  &   Kansas City

Denver  =  Arizona  &  San Francisco

Detroit =  Cleveland &  Buffalo

Green Bay = Cleveland & Pittsburgh

Houston = Dallas & Arizona

Indianapolis = Chicago & Minnesota

Jacksonville = Atlanta & Tampa Bay

Kansas City = Seattle & Dallas

Las Vegas = Seattle & LA Rams

LA Chargers = LA Rams & San Francisco

LA Rams = LA Chargers & Las Vegas

Miami = New Orleans & Tampa Bay

Minnesota = Indianapolis & Cincinnati

New England = NY Giants & Philadelphia

New Orleans = Miami & Tennessee

NY Giants = NY Jets & New England

NY Jets = NY Giants & Washington

Philadelphia = New England & Buffalo

Pittsburgh = Green Bay & Chicago

San Francisco = Denver & LA Chargers

Seattle = Kansas City & Las Vegas

Tampa Bay = Jacksonville & Miami

Tennessee = New Orleans & Atlanta

Washington = Baltimore & NY Jets

The list of rivals above isn't perfect. For instance, I would like to see the Eagles and Steelers as rivals, but this was the best overall geographic fit that I could come up with.